Nirav Modi’s Scam: Questions of Responsibility and Accountability
In recent years, several high-profile corruption scandals in India have brought to light the complex issues surrounding accountability and responsibility. One such notable case is that of Nirav Modi and his business dealings that came to light just after Prime Minister Narendra Modi's second term began in 2019. This article delves into the intricacies of the situation and the questions that arise regarding the culpability of those involved.
Nirav Modi's Scam in Context
The Nirav Modi scam, which began in 2008 and continued until 2018, exposed a series of financial misdeeds that went undetected for a staggering decade. The involvement of senior officials, including the former CMD (Chief Management Director) of State Bank of India (SBI), added another layer of complexity to the investigation and subsequent public discourse.
It is crucial to understand the extended teams of auditors present in any PSU (Public Sector Undertaking) bank, including internal auditors, statutory auditors, RBI auditors, and CAG auditors. Despite these stringent measures, the fraud remained unnoticed for a substantial period, leading some to question if the fault lies in the functioning of the system or the quality of oversight.
Why Modi?
The question of why Nirav Modi did not gift a house to PM Modi arises from a misunderstanding of the situation. Nirav Modi fled India in 2018, aware that under the administration of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, he would face severe legal consequences. This highlights a broader issue regarding the accountability and the extent of responsibility of politicians in matters that occur during their tenure.
Mock Trials and Penalties
Analysing the issue in the context of a Mock Trial, it raises an interesting point. If a bank, say SBI, provides a loan of 15,000 crores to a borrower for business purposes, and the loan turns into a non-performing asset (NPA), the borrower can claim innocence citing various reasons. This scenario points to the inherent limitations in the current judicial and regulatory framework and highlights the need for a more comprehensive auditing and regulatory regime.
Accountability of Public Servants
The vast number of bank branches and PSUs (Public Sector Undertakings) across India means that the responsibility of monitoring and investigating each branch falls on the shoulders of the authorities, not just the Prime Minister. To expect the Prime Minister to personally oversee audits of 138,850 branches is unrealistic.
The question of what happened in 2008, during UPA (United Progressive Alliance) rule, suggests a delay in addressing the issue. This draws attention to the necessary changes in transparency and accountability that need to be implemented.
Broader Implications
The cases of Nirav Modi and other high-profile fraudsters like Vijay Mallya underscore the larger issue of corruption in India. The systemic corruption and lack of robust legal mechanisms in place make it extraordinarily difficult to bring such individuals to justice. The example of Lalit Modi, a former BCCI (Board of Control for Cricket in India) official, further highlights the complex nature of these cases.
Conclusion
While Nirav Modi and his associates have undoubtedly played a significant role in these corrupt practices, the broader systemic issues remain unresolved. The challenge lies in reforming the system to ensure that such situations do not arise in the first place and that when they do, the perpetrators face justice promptly and effectively.
As the saying goes, 'Writing Quora posts is the easiest thing, but bringing such culprits to justice is not so easy,' especially when the entire system is rotten. It is imperative for the Indian government to address these systemic issues and implement reforms to curb corruption and ensure accountability.
Additionally, for a deeper understanding of the corruption and judicial system in India, one can watch movies such as 'Akrosh' (1989) and 'Mandi' (2000), which provide a profound insight into the rot that exists within.